Swift boat vets ad bashes Kerry





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Swift boat vets ad bashes Kerry
By Solfnod1 (Solfnod1) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Has anyone else seen the ad against Kerry by those Vietnam veterans from his swift boat....I support....er, supported Kerry but that is powerful stuff...

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Daaamn Kerry got OWNED. Make sure to read "Unfit for Command" written by Kerry's swift boat colleagues. Quite interesting indeed.

**Oh and did anyone see the news conference in DC where the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth organization made their stance fairly clear?

Quote: *******"The letter, which is the centerpiece of the organization’s efforts, is signed, said O’Neill, by Swift Boat veterans “at all levels and from the entire political spectrum; the entire chain of command during the period Kerry served in Vietnam; veterans who participated in the engagements resulting in his medals; and the majority of officers who served with him in Coastal Division 11, the unit in which he spent most of his abbreviated four-month tour of duty.

Leading off the parade of vets who trooped up to the podium was Rear Adm. Hoffman, who remarked, “I signed this letter because I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust – all absolute tenets of command.

Hoffman, the former commander of Task Force 115, was near the top of Kerry’s chain of command while the senator was a young lieutenant junior grade serving in Vietnam in 1968-69."******

*Veteran Robert “Friar Tuck” Brant emotionally described how he was going to visit the Vietnam War Memorial wall right after the press conference and “tell my two dead crewmates” not to pay attention to how Kerry has dishonored them with his charges of nearly universal war crimes and atrocities (referring especially to Kerry's testimony on Capitol Hill in 1971).

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Oh and stop saying that "OoO Bush went AWOl and he's soo bad", cuz this thread is about Kerry and Vietnam.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Haha, I love that AWOL charge. Kerry has pointed out that 11 of 12 of his swift boat soldiers support him, but really, I don't care what he did in Vietnam. I think that his record in the Senate is much more important then his Vietnam medals. Kerry doesn't seem to talk about that Senate record, though. Maybe because it would expose him for what he is: a typical weak on defense, tax raising, flip-flop liberal.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit

I heard that Hannity was going to play it on Fox tonight, but I fell asleep while I was watching (LOL)..

By Solfnod1 (Solfnod1) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Ejpowers: Actually the people in the ad are from Kerry's swift boat and something like 19 out of the 23 men from the boat are against him...

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:18 pm: Edit

Yeah, Hannity played some of it tonight and he says he's going to play the all of it tomrrow night.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:19 pm: Edit

Wow, I was just listening to what Kerry's spokesperson said. I guess believing a Kerry spokesman was my first mistake.

By Avidreader2006 (Avidreader2006) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit

.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit

There they go again. The Republicans once again have nothing but muck to invent and spin, and no shortage of hacks like Hannity to peddle it.

Too bad libel and slander laws can't be used against these slime balls.

By Digmedia (Digmedia) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:59 am: Edit

To seriously get back to the topic (disclosure: I will vote for Kerry): Kerry made some very powerful statements about the war in VietNam when he returned. I happened to feel the same way, but I totally understand that those who did NOT oppose the war (most military officers and most enlisted men) would have some very powerful (negative) responses that would last until today.

I led a local antiwar organization in Florida and had lots of negative things said to me. One officer stated quite stongly that I should be shot. But I can quite understand the depth of his negative feelings and where they were coming from.

It wasn't Republican or Democratic view; it was a true difference of opinion and there were strong feelings on both sides.

I am a little disturbed that Kerry is concentrating on his military record and ignoring his strong anti-war views afterwards. I wish he would not only own up to what he said, but be proud of it.


=

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:38 am: Edit

something like 20 out of 25 of those who served in kerry's unit do not support him and wrote kerry a joint letter asking him not to allude to them. One reason vets are agaisnt him is because he falsly testified to war crimes that he never saw, while his fellow unit men and troops were being held and tortured by the north vietnamese on the basis of false war crimes charges. It gives me the feeling that kerry's 4 months of service was at least partially politically motivated. It is also suspicious why he brought a video recorder to record himself.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 03:38 am: Edit

Kerry should have learned something about milking a military record. Electors voted for Bush and Clinton while thumping their noses at real war heroes like McCain and Dole.

By Lethalfang (Lethalfang) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 04:24 am: Edit

Good point, about "thumping noses at real war heroes."
The president of the United States does not lead a charge against the enemy on the battlefield, so realistically being a war hero does not necessarily make one a better president.
Ulysses Grant of often hailed as American's best general and worst president.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 09:40 am: Edit

I think the real damner in all of this was Kerry's OWN colleagues on TV or on the web revealing his personal deficiencies: indeciseveness, personal glory seeking, his Purple Heart gyp, lacking a capacity to lead.

And ironically, www.swiftvets.com is not sponsored by the any political party. It's completely made up of vets who know better than to trust Kerry.

By Justice (Justice) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:10 am: Edit

If I had an opportunistic, self-involved, spoiled, and completely insincere comrade on my boat, I'd be pissed off too if he tried to use me as leverage in his campaign. Doesn't mean Kerry will be a bad president, but frankly, anyone who can't see that Kerry is extremely selfish and dishonest needs to take a closer look at all the released information that's out there. Info is Republican propaganda? Hardly, considering, as vancat says, that it comes from Kerry himself.

By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:31 am: Edit

You just described Bush.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:36 am: Edit

Alongfortheride, maybe you need to start reading. We're talking about Kerry and what his own crew mates had to say about him.

By Takiusproteus (Takiusproteus) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:55 am: Edit

There is a few things wrong here:

1. Rear Admiral whatshisface is, as mentioned, at the TOP of Kerry's chain of command.
Who the hell is he to comment on Kerry? He hardly knows Kerry. He's the guy who leads the whole task force. On what level do you think he could possibly know what Kerry is like?
If he were Kerry's direct commanding officer one rank above him, then yes, it would be more credible.

2. STOP ATTACKING KERRY FOR 'FLIPFLOPPING'.
I've heard this "flipflop" nonsense too much regarding his vietnam service and subsequent protest. Ask 100000 anti-Kerryists why they hate him and they will all say the same exact words: "He is a flipflopper." Woohoo, yay for propaganda.

He did his duty to his country and served honorably.

Later, after the experience of the war, he realized that there were issues with this war and decided to speak out against them. The fact that he actually SERVED in the war gives him the RIGHT to say something about it.

Flipflopping would be serving his country, then coming back to burn the American flag. He didn't do that. He came back and, in an attempt to do good, spoke out against the war, which we know today was a bad war.

By Justice (Justice) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:18 am: Edit

He is a hypocrite. He says whatever is best to make him look good--which is why he is a flip-flopper:

1) He rejects the awards and then wants them back to show how honorable he is. Clearly this shows that he values his honor much more than the force of his ideals.
2) He lied a ton after Vietnam for various issues. He has proven time and time again that he is willing to say anything to get to where he wants to be.
3) He claims that he is a "common man" who will fight for the common good. Take a look at his background. Hope I don't need to go into this further.
4) His vision is trash. He is always on the wrong side of the vote. Against Iraqi war? He should've been as intelligent and decisive as some of his Democrat peers to actually make the conclusion WHEN IT MATTERED. As a center-leftist that pisses me off. He hasn't had a single opinion of consequence in Congress. EVER. He goes with the status quo whenever he can--exploitation and not innovation is his style.
5) He completely alienates the military and then claims that he will be better for the military than Bush.

And finally, as an example of just how much of a flip-flopper he is, take a look at abortion:

Forget about Catholicism. He states with assurance that "life begins with conception." Ahh, we think--Kerry is a radical pro-life Democrat. Later on, he says he is for early-term abortion. WHAT??? How can you say that life begins with conception and then be FOR ending that life? Here is what our friendly flip-flopper had to say: "I don't think the state has the right to decide the fate of that life." Ummm...so he's using the completely absurd argument that the state does not have the power to protect lives. By his flawed logic, Michael Jackson could rape and kill someone else's 4-year-old son and the state "cannot protect that life."

Again, not propaganda. This is stuff that Kerry himself said. I don't need talk-radio to tell me that he's a flip-flopper to believe it. When someone talks trash out of his mouth, I lose respect for him.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:23 am: Edit

SoCal Dad: In order for libel and slander to apply, the charges have to be false. Can you prove that they are false or are you letting your boosterism get the best of you? While there quite likely is a Republican involved with the dissemination of these charges, it is not likely endorsed by the Bush campaign since if they can be proven to be false, this would hurt the campaign much more than help it. Even if they are not proven false, there is a likely chance that this will hurt Bush much more than help him and I think the campaign staff is savy enough to know this. My guess is that are fighting to keep this under wraps.

But, even if there is Republican involvement, it doesn't make the charges untrue - it's hard to refute people like the medical officer who treated Kerry for his "wound". They are a lot closer to the truth than you or I will ever be.

The question is does this all matter? Normally, I would say it matters no more than the "Bush was AWOL" charge. It is ancient history. However, Kerry used his Vietnam service as the centerpiece of his qualifications to be president (which, by the way is a ridiculous notion). If his service turns out to be tainted or a sham, then I think it really does matter.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit

Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased.

Follow the money that is funding this and paying for these liars.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:55 am: Edit

John McCain steps up to defend Kerry against the SBVAT ad, and brings up a couple of very interesting points.

"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."

By Solfnod1 (Solfnod1) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit

...actually, as the one presenting the charges, following the money, etc in order to prove YOUR claims of dishonesty is YOUR burden

By Solfnod1 (Solfnod1) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:05 pm: Edit

If you go to the swiftvets website you'll see that all the men from the ad were fellow Swift Boat commanders in the 11th Costal Division (there's a photo of all of them together with Kerry from '69)...if your fellow division commanders don't know you in battle, who does?

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:09 pm: Edit

May be people should read about flip-flopper-in chief at http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

and go to outfoxed.org and see why Communists had Pravada and Republicans have Fox.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Actually, I base my opinions primarily on the reports of the people who were there with Kerry, rather than people who happened to be somewhere in Vietnam at the time. I'm also influenced by the official records of the US military, which awarded John Kerry medals for his performance.

I respect McCain immensely for the work that he and John Kerry did together trying to resolve the issues for the MIA's in Southeast Asia and for his integrity serving this country.

From Joe Connason, talking about the Smear Boat Veterans for Bush

Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed."

Spaeth told Salon that O'Neill first approached her last winter to discuss his "concerns about Sen. Kerry." O'Neill has been assailing Kerry since 1971, when the former Navy officer was selected for the role by Charles Colson, Richard Nixon's dirty-tricks aide. Spaeth heard O'Neill out, but told him, she says, that he "sounded like a crazed extremist" and should "button his lip" and avoid speaking with the press. But since Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination, Spaeth has changed her mind and decided to donate her public relations services on a "pro bono" basis to O'Neill's latest anti-Kerry effort. "About three weeks ago, four weeks ago," she said, the group's leaders "met in my office for about 12 hours" to prepare for their Washington debut.

Although not as well known as Karen Hughes, Spaeth is among the most experienced and best connected Republican communications executives. During the Reagan administration she served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaison, where she specialized in promoting "news" items that boosted President Reagan to TV stations around the country. While living in Washington she met and married Lezar, a Reagan Justice Department lawyer who ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1994 with George W. Bush, then the party's candidate for governor. (Lezar lost; Bush won.)

Through Lezar, who died of a heart attack last January, she met O'Neill, his law partner in Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, a Dallas firm. (It also includes Margaret Wilson, the former counsel to Gov. Bush who followed him to Washington, where she served for a time as a deputy counsel in the Department of Commerce.)
Spaeth's partisanship runs still deeper, as does her history of handling difficult P.R. cases for Republicans. In 1998, for example, she coached Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, to prepare him for his testimony urging the impeachment of President Clinton before the House Judiciary Committee. She even reviewed videotapes of his previous television appearances to give him pointers about his delivery and demeanor. The man responsible for arranging her advice to Starr was another old friend of her late husband's, Theodore Olson, who was counsel to the right-wing American Spectator when it acted as a front for the dirty-tricks campaign against Clinton known as the Arkansas Project; he is now the solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department. (Olson also happens to be the godfather of Spaeth's daughter.)

In 2000, Spaeth participated in the most subterranean episode of the Republican primary contest when a shadowy group billed as "Republicans for Clean Air" produced television ads falsely attacking the environmental record of Sen. John McCain in California, New York and Ohio. While the identity of those funding the supposedly "independent" ads was carefully hidden, reporters soon learned that Republicans for Clean Air was simply Sam Wyly -- a big Bush contributor and beneficiary of Bush administration decisions in Texas -- and his brother, Charles, another Bush "Pioneer" contributor. (One of the Wyly family's private capital funds, Maverick Capital of Dallas, had been awarded a state contract to invest $90 million for the University of Texas endowment.)


When the secret emerged, spokeswoman Spaeth caught the flak for the Wylys, an experience she recalled to me as "horrible" and "awful." Her job was to assure reporters that there had been no illegal coordination between the Bush campaign and the Wyly brothers in arranging the McCain-trashing message. Not everyone believed her explanation, including the Arizona senator.

The veteran group's founder, Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, first gained notoriety in Vietnam as a strutting, cigar-chewing Navy captain. But it was O'Neill, by now a familiar figure on the Kerry-bashing circuit, who came to Spaeth for assistance.

Until now, Hoffmann has been best known as the commanding officer whose obsession with body counts and "scorekeeping" may have provoked the February 1969 massacre of Vietnamese civilians at Thanh Phong by a unit led by Bob Kerrey -- the Medal of Honor winner who lost a leg in Nam, became a U.S. senator from Nebraska and now sits on the 9/11 commission.

After journalist Gregory Vistica exposed the Thanh Phong massacre and the surrounding circumstances in the New York Times magazine three years ago, conservative columnist Christopher Caldwell took particular note of the cameo role played by Kerrey's C.O., who had warned his men not to return from missions without enough kills. "One of the myths due to die as a result of Vistica's article is that which holds the war could have been won sensibly and cleanly if the 'suits' back in Washington had merely left the military men to their own devices," Caldwell wrote. "In this light, one of the great merits of Vistica's article is its portrait of the Kurtz-like psychopath who commanded Kerrey's Navy task force, Capt. Roy Hoffmann."

Arguments about the war in Vietnam seem destined to continue forever. For now, however, the lingering bitterness and ambiguity of those days provide smear material against an antiwar war hero with five medals on behalf of a privileged Guardsman with a dubious duty record. The president's Texas allies -- whose animus against his Democratic challenger dates back to the Nixon era -- are now deploying the same techniques and personnel they used to attack McCain's integrity four years ago. Bush's "independent" supporters would apparently rather talk about the Vietnam quagmire than about his deadly incompetence in Iraq.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:26 pm: Edit

justice,
presenting opinion as fact is getting you nowhere fast.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Preview of next arguments.

Attack Joe Conason and Salon
Attack the liberal media
Attack me for my bias
Attack Bill and Hillary Clinton
Attack Michael Moore
Say everybody does it, especially Kerry

Never, ever acknowledge the comments of Senator John McCain, who has condemned both the Smear Boat Veterans for Bush and their tactics.

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Socaldad don't you think Gore will be squeazed somewhere in there?


very good article.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Haven't seen the commercial, but a few comments ...

1. Why can't people just leave Vietnam alone? It was a different era. Remember rich kids got out of the war. Should Kerry be praised because he went even though he didn't have to? Yes, but move on ... it's not that important. Should Bush be slandered because he didn't do anything? No, because he was rich and they got out of the war.
2. "He says whatever is best to make him look good" (Justice). Nice job ... you just described every politician in the history of time. The whole flip-flopper charge is bogus because Bush is as much of one as Kerry. That's what politicians do -- they change their minds to get more votes. I'm tired of bogus labels being thrown on Kerry like that when they are as applicable to Bush as well.
3. Listen to John McCain. Even though I disagree with his policies and whatnot, I don't think I trust anyone more.

That's all for now.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:47 pm: Edit

"By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 03:38 am: Edit


Kerry should have learned something about milking a military record. Electors voted for Bush and Clinton while thumping their noses at real war heroes like McCain and Dole. "

Well actually, this is a different time. Larry King had a great debate on his show during the DNC....the consensus agreed (including Dole who was on the show) that if the times surrounding the 96 election were anything like those of 2004, Dole would be President specifically due to his war record.


Secondly, you guys can rant and rave about the ad all you want but I will repost what Mcain (probably the most honorable figure in the whole Republican party) had to say about it:

"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."

If you ask me, the whole Bush campaign should be very upset over the ad. The Dems just devoted a whole convetion to positive hope and optimisim. All this ad really does is label the GOP as negative and distasteful mudslingers.

As for the flip-floper comments... give me a break. Refer to the last episode of Bill Maher's show... they had a very intelligent and entertaining discussion about the whole flip floper issue.

Maher (can't remember exactly what he said) summed it up better than I have ever heard. Something along the lines of what is wrong with changing your mind, it is what intelligent people do. They learn and act on what they have learned. After 19 years in the Senate, you better change your views on issues. We should be more worried about those who never change their minds.

By Remindergto (Remindergto) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:49 pm: Edit

In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team.

McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because "it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal."

"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."

McCain himself spent more than five years in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp. A bona fide war hero, McCain, like Kerry, used his war record as the foundation of his presidential campaign.

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day -- Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying on all fronts.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Actually, if you go to the web site and read the individual stories, at least one of them DID serve on Kerry's boat. The others served alongside him and on the same missions, not "just somewhere else in Vietnam" as SoCal Dad claimed. Of all his fellow officers who served with him, only one supports him now. It's too bad that this stuff comes up, but Kerry and his camp can only look to themselves for inviting it by a) making his "heroism" a centerpiece of the campaign and b) allowing Michael Moore and Terry McCauliffe to re-raise the AWOL/deserter stuff.

By Justice (Justice) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit

If you think my opinions are not factual, please enlighten me eyesclozedtight. I welcome it.

By Justice (Justice) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit


Something along the lines of what is wrong with changing your mind, it is what intelligent people do. They learn and act on what they have learned. After 19 years in the Senate, you better change your views on issues. We should be more worried about those who never change their minds.


Indeed, but wouldn't you say that there's a difference between being flexible and having no fundamental values or vision of the future? If we define politicians as those who are most responsible for policy creation and innovation, and we note that Kerry is a politician, then we can essentially say that Kerry is a failed politician because he has never been responsible for policy creation or innovation. If we define a leader as someone who takes in all viewpoints from constituents but eventually makes the decision himself with his own judgment, and we note that Kerry is aspiring to be a leader, then we can see he is not a very good leader from his record in the Senate. Let me ask you: when has Kerry ever made a decision of consequence, nevermind good or bad, since becoming a politician?

Please refute this.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Keep going smear mongers.

As far as I'm concerned, once John McCain weighs in, this story is over. Unless you want to smear him too.

Do not participate in the ongoing degradation of American political discourse. The triumph of politics over policy, of smear over fact, must be rejected if we are to save the republic that our ancestors died to create and preserve.

The emails from Ed Gillespie attacking Kerry's patriotism were the motivating factor for me to formally leave the Republican party. When fiscal conservatives and rational thinkers take it back from the crazies and the smear mongers, I'll be glad to come back.

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit

Socaldad, your strategy of fighting these smear campaigns by attempting to smear these veterans is highly amusing. As I mentioned in another thread, fighting fire with fire may sound cool, but it's not really effective: I suggest using water.

By Justice (Justice) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit

I do agree they should stop spending money on negative ads. The Republicans should've taken a hint after the DNC.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 02:04 pm: Edit

SoCal Dad:

Can you quote the emails from Gillespie? He has never challenged Kerry's Vietnam service or his heroism and you know it! This claim that the republicans challenge the patriotism of the Democrats is itself a smear campaign that I am getting tired of. The Democrats are trying to spin a legitimate question of one's voting record into an assertion that one's patriotism is being questioned. I have seen Kerry make this claim countless times and it is getting very tiring. It is clearly his only escape from his voting record and it is a cheap shot.

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Pookdogie: Scocaldad is not smearing only refuting the claims of the veteran who DID not serve in the same boat.....

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Likewise, the SwiftVets aren't smearing, only refuting the claims of the candidate who is basing his campaign on his record in Vietnam.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 02:55 pm: Edit

ya republicans never challenge the service and patriotism of democrats. just ask max cleland...

Justice said: "If you think my opinions are not factual, please enlighten me eyesclozedtight. I welcome it."

umm... that's why they're opinions, if they wern't we'd call them facts. they can't be both. the whole "kerry is a flip flopper" line is getting pretty old. even smart conservatives aren't stupid enough to use that one. you saying things like, "he lied a ton" or "his vision is trash" or "he claims he's the 'common man'" just makes you look silly. your aloud to have opinions, but claiming them as facts is another story.

By Solfnod1 (Solfnod1) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 03:12 pm: Edit

eyesclozedtight:

1. Opinions CAN and normally are based on facts they idea that they can't because "then they'd be facts" is ridiculous

2. Justice said himself he was "left of center"...I'm willing to bet he isn't Republican or a conservative...

By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Vancat, I am reading and I know you're talking about Kerry, but be careful what labels you throw at people because some of them may boomerang and stick to your candidate. If the shoe fits.....

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 03:26 pm: Edit

This whole thing is ridculous..

1. It is distasteful and almost pathetic the GOP turns to mudslinging after the Dems just focused their whole convention on hope, optimism, and the positive (makes them seem like the desperate horse trying to catch the leader wouldnt ya say ?)

2. If you are going to mudsling..at least follow one simple rule: DO NOT THROW FIRE IF YOUR CANDIDATE HAS NO MATCHES

It takes an awfull lot of stupidity to even attempt to degrade Kerry's Vietnam record. Especially when Bush could not even successfully ride Daddy's ticket into the National Guard

Let's say the ad was 100% factual.. Kerry's boat did not support him (which we know is absolutely untrue, and McCaine even concurs)..but anyhow say it was. What does it prove? Or rather what next? It does not take away from the fact that he was still a purple heart war hero. How does this make Bush look any better? Does it change the fact that he went AWOL from the national guard?

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Eyesclosedtight:

OK, if I were to ask Max Cleland, what would he tell me? He would say the same thing that Kerry does - that they are attcking his patriotism. But what actually did they say about Cleland that attacked his patriotism? Did they question his role in Vietnam or his devotion to his country? No. Did they question his vote against Homeland Security? yes. When one questions ones vote, it does not automatically means that you are questioning one's patriotism.

There's probably a paragraph in the Democratic training manual that states, "when a Republican takes you to task on how you voted, immediately go on the offensive and accuse him of attacking your patriotism; there are plenty of saps out there that will believe you because we have successfully painted the entire Republican party as mean spirited people."

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit

damn scubasteve, you realize swiftvets.com is NOT funded by the GOP. It's independant. Also, Bush said himself that this website hit below the belt for a campaign.

And the ad is nothing about W or his Guard duty, It is simply a statement by Kerry's swift boat colleagues who do not trust him to be president based on his actions in Vietnam.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit

McCain and the vets who served on Kerry's boat are good enough to me.

Moreover, according to either CNN or Washington Post--I forget which website--two of the people in the ad are vets who appeared *with* Kerry in his previous campaigns. What's changed between then and now? Raw politics...Kerry is running against Bush.

What you're seeing is part of pattern of Republican outrage and sense of entitlement regarding the military, service, the flag, etc. •••• 'em. Those are Democratic issues as much as theirs and with any luck, the Dems are going to do to Bush what the Russians did to Army Group Center in 1944.

The Republicans are furiously attacking on this issue because right now terrorism--for which standing with respect to defense is a proxy--is the *only* issue where Bush is leading Kerry in the polls.

Per that ABC/Washington Post poll, 7/30-8/1

Bush Kerry

Terrorism 48 45
Iraq 46 48
Improving
intelligence 43 48

Taxes 43 49
Relations w/
other countries 42 51

Economy 41 52
Education 39 52
Health Care 36 55

All the other polls have shown a similar profile.
Bush's side is attacking furiously on this issue because it's the only thing keeping them up in the overall polls...they lose this issue, they collapse like a souffle.

And nothing about Kerry can be isolated. Everything, to the voting public, is in context of a comparison to George Bush.

Elections with an incumbent are foremost a referendum on the incumbent...only if people are unhappy with the incumbent does the challenger have a chance. Bush's sorry record has opened the door for Kerry; all Kerry has to do is come off as an acceptable and plausible replacement. Since Bush really can't run on his record, the Bush campaign's only alternative is to portray Kerry as unacceptable. Bush may be an idiot but Karl Rove isn't, though it seems that Rove's dreams of the 1000-year Republican Reich may have been a tad premature.

By Neo (Neo) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 07:01 pm: Edit

"Since Bush really can't run on his record, the Bush campaign's only alternative is to portray Kerry as unacceptable."

That's just about all there is to it.


As a side note, I've recently wondered how Kerry can be labelled as a "flip-flopper" by the Bush/Cheney Campaign while simultaneously being denouced as having "the most liberal voting record in the senate". Wouldn't having "the most liberal voting record in the senate" automatically revoke their "flip-flip-flopper" chant?

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 07:04 pm: Edit

From DailyKos,

Just watched Inside Politics, and their story on the smear ad on Kerry's Vietnam service. Judy Woodruff interviewed Larry Thurlow and Jim Rassman. Thurlow was claiming that during Kerry's rescue of Rassman, there was no enemy fire at all, and hence Kerry didn't deserve a purple heart or a bronze star. Rassman held his ground, saying he that Thurlow must be telling this story for partisan reasons.

A simple Google search reveals a completely different story in American History magazine from this past April. While Kerry was rescuing Rassman,

"Thurlow was struggling to get PCF-3's wounded gunner out of his hole and onto the deck when the damaged Swift ran aground hard on a shoal on the right side of the river, sending Thurlow somersaulting into the water. At the same moment, the five Swifts came under fire from the right side again, and Kerry remembered thinking that was it -- they were going to get completely cut off and annihilated in a crossfire."
Thurlow noted in the IP interview that he was thrown into the water that day, but didn't say why. The American History article also notes:

"Kerry and the other wounded men received medical attention aboard a Coast Guard cutter, which was the closest ship capable of treating them. Along with a third Purple Heart for the injury to his right arm, Kerry was also awarded a Bronze Star for his bravery, as was Larry Thurlow."

In other words, if Kerry doesn't deserve his bronze star, seems that Thurlow doesn't deserve his either. But I don't see him rushing to give it back. It's unforgivable to allow a vet like Thurlow, whatever kind of person he is now, to tarnish his own heroism by encouraging these lies. If Bush had the slightest understanding of honor he would never allow this by his surrogates. It's just disgusting.

By Brzrk (Brzrk) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit

I don't have the time to read through every single post so far on this thread, but I hope it has been mentioned that none of the people criticizing Kerry served on the same boat as him, ever.

And John McCain bashed the ad. McCain rocks, and that's coming from one of the most liberal people you will find.

By Neo (Neo) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Precisely. I'm not sure whether I'm more appalled by these veterans disgracing themselves and everything their comrades fought and died for -- their very honor -- merely for political reasons, or if I'm more disgusted with the Bush administration for tolerating, supporting -- dare I say -- encouraging these lies merely for the purpose of winning an election.

But I suppose if one man is willing to go to war and save the lives of his fellow Americans, another must be equally willing to send *others* to a war which *continues* to claim the lives of his fellow Americans.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 07:30 pm: Edit

"It's unforgivable to allow a vet like Thurlow, whatever kind of person he is now, to tarnish his own heroism by encouraging these lies. If Bush had the slightest understanding of honor he would never allow this by his surrogates. It's just disgusting. "

Well said.

By Justice (Justice) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Eyesclozedshut,

I take it the only way for you to reconcile Kerry's opportunism and mediocrity in Senate is by calling me a Republican.

No offense, but I am a moderate Democrat and I honestly hope you see the hypocrisy of your statements. Instead of fighting facts with facts, or "opinions with opinions," you're fighting my opinions with irrelevant semantics (which you're pretty bad at). How about you learn some things and then come back and try to refute my arguments? Or are you one of those ignorant-liberals that Republican media love to pick on to make statements about how Democrats are attracting dumb people?

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Justice,"Or are you one of those ignorant-liberals that Republican media love to pick on to make statements about how Democrats are attracting dumb people?"

yes and I love it.....life is good when you are ignorant.

By Texdad (Texdad) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:11 pm: Edit

I have noticed that the Republicans have been getting less and less substantive as they seem to be smelling a defeat for Bush.

Since Bush has no real accomplishments they can only go negative. One of the recent speels that has been losing traction is to attack Kerry's record in the Senate, when Cheney the purported brains on the ticket, passed only 2 bills in over 10 years in the House.

Ultimately I think that by keeping the spot light on the candidates' military service the problems of Bush with being AWOL will be heightened. While it is possible that this type of swift boat thing does fire up the dittoheads, I don't think it will play with moderates.

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 12:34 am: Edit

America has a long line of veterans who have served in times of peace and war. For the most part, the majority of them who experienced war would be grateful to forget many of the less pleasant details. They do not like to be asked, “What was it like?” and among themselves agree to a man that, if they learned anything from the experience, it was only the sure belief that they would never want any of that experience to be played out on American soil.

For most, the experience was so un-real that they would be hard pressed to say the next day that something they saw yesterday really happened in a particular way. To be able to recall in great detail what someone, who wasn’t in your outfit, did in the fog of war on a particular day thirty YEARS ago strikes me as beyond unbelievable.

I served in Vietnam during the same time period as John Kerry, and in the same anti-war group with him after returning home. He is one of the finest people to have come through that experience. While I have never mistaken him for a saint, I have also never met a man more capable of rising to the challenge of the office he now seeks.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 01:45 am: Edit

Thank you very much for your eloquent comments, Morgantruce.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 02:05 am: Edit

you should all see "The Hunting of the President" to see what liars and vicious dogs the republicans, particularly those who embrace the religious right, can be when they're desperate.

republican game plan after the DNC:
1) issue a terror alert
2) launch this well-orchestrated smear campaign.

the bush gang is desperate. and they should be. people are sick of their lies, their bad judgment, their corruption, their war, and their silly justifications for their actions. they ought to focus on doing the right thing, rather than on trying to prove they're right.

it's funny that those who support bush are questioning kerry's service record when it's pretty clear that bush's service record is a complete joke. not to mention that the pentagon "lost" records that would confirm whether or not bush really did serve when he was supposed to. what a joke.

regarding sean hannity, bill o'reilly, ann coulter . . . please . . . they're not journalists. they're looking out for themselves. this conservative trash politics sells their books, their t-shirts, their personalities. they're in that top bracket who got the biggest tax cuts. bill o'reilly is not looking out for you or anyone else other than himself and his bank account.

KERRY EDWARDS 2004. The alternative is 4 more years of the same old crap.

By Savedbythebell7 (Savedbythebell7) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 03:27 am: Edit

GO TO:...www.jibjab.com/

enjoy.

By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 09:22 am: Edit

This morning on Good Morning America, George Elliot, one of the swift boat vets was shown 8 years ago in favor of Kerry and the job he did. Now, 8 years later, he's against. Talk about flip-flopping.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 09:51 am: Edit

I wonder how many of the anti Kerry folks in this discussion have ever served on active duty in the military? Any?

If you had, you would understand Morgantruce's comments, which were quite understated. What he did not comment on was the sense of rivalry that exists among differing commands. I see the RNC exploiting this a bit.

Then there is the imbellishment. How would another swift boat commander have any idea what was happening on the patrol of another? These boats did not work in teams in broad daylight. It was hard enough to see what was happening on your own boat, in your own zone. When shots start flying, I can GUARANTEE you that anyone nearby was NOT watching Kerry's boat. If they had, they would not be talking about it now. We'd be visiting them in a national cemetary.

Go ahead, socaldad. Vote for King GWB. But, have you checked your 401K lately? Looked at today's stock market? THIS is the future you want?

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:07 am: Edit

socaldad and king GWB??? Massdad you are confused

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 11:15 am: Edit

Massdad, I think you have me confused with another commentor on this board.

While I have been a registered Republican for most of my adult life, with a brief foray into the Libertarian party, I've been appalled by the Bush administration on almost every level.

Before this year, the only Presidential campaign I ever contributed to was a token amount to John Anderson. This year, my wife and I have given thousands of dollars successively to Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry.

As to military involvement, my deferments carried me through the end of the draft. My best friends in the mid-70's were Vietnam veterans, whose courage, sacrifice, and anguish I came to understand.

Currently, a young man who lived with us for several years, who we treat like a family member, is on active duty with the Air Force. When I think of him, I am doubly convinced that we need a new Commander in Chief.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit

OK, OK, wrong reference. Skip that. Any comments on content?

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 12:04 pm: Edit

But, have you checked your 401K lately? Looked at today's stock market?

And what do you see? Or better, what did you expect since January 2001.

Every time I am trying to understand the logic behind this Bush bashing, I leave shaking my head in despair. The worst part is that some comments are made by people who REALLY should know better.

Again, how well would you hav expected the economy to perform? Do you have any idea what is needed to reach a 4% growth in a western and civilized economy?

La critique est aisée, l'art est difficile.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 12:06 pm: Edit

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 03:38 am
Kerry should have learned something about milking a military record. Electors voted for Bush and Clinton while thumping their noses at real war heroes like McCain and Dole. "

I completely agree with this statement. What else could Kerry have expected. I mean, me keeps on milking his millitary record in Vietnam for all it's worth and criticizing Bush for how he handled September 11, 2001. He can't be the only one making low blows. And I'm sure that the people behind this ad are Republicans but I don't care .

He said something about that if he was Bush he would have told the kids he had some important stuff to deal with. That sooooo turned me off. I'm a 100% Bush supporter now. Can't wait to turn 18 and send him some cash too!

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 12:09 pm: Edit

By the way again, I'm a registered Democrat considering changing parties. I'm really sickened by the way left wing nuts have taken over the party. It's as if the party only stands for whatever Bush doesn't stand for. It's too reactionary. If Bush if for Iraq, Democrats aren't. Why don't Democrats start making and planning policy instead of criticizing.

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Ndbisme5: you speak wisdom. I'm in the same boat as you. It's not that I think that Bush will make a great second-term president, but it's just that the alternative is looking less and less appealing.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 12:31 pm: Edit

Anti-Kerry Vet Retracts

From CBS news:
....But one of the leading figures in the anti-Kerry campaign is backing off his criticisms.

Lt. Commander George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer, told The Boston Globe that he had made a "terrible mistake" when he signed an affidavit that suggested Kerry did not deserve one of his medals, the Silver Star.....

....
But Elliott now says he regrets signing the affidavit and believes Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

"I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott told the Globe Thursday. "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words."

"I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake," Elliott said. ...

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Thanks Pookdogg! This is perhaps the third time I've been called wise (first time was my religious school teacher ).

If Lieberman was running (family was Gore & Lieberman in 2000), I might then have a difficult time making up my mind. But it's pretty clear who's going to win in 2004 and why. The dream ticket to me this year would be McCain and Lieberman.

I mean, these are perhaps the only two politicians who actually have a brain and don't do whatever the party wants. They think for themselves and they are VERY mainstream. Oh, well.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Eventually I'm going to figure out how quickly political CC threads degenerate from a legitimate discussion to bitter partisan bickering...it was at about reply 9 in this thread. Interesting...

Why won't people admit that BOTH parties are royally messed up? Both go negative, both do the mudslinging, and neither will concede anything to the other party. They both want to win, and both will do anything to win...one party is not better than the other.

Seriously... jibjab.com all the way for the best summation of this election!

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Hunter1985, I do agree that both parties messed up. When I run I don't plan on going negative unless it's face to face with my opponent. Negative ads are for cowards.

JibJab is really good.

The only thing that keeps me from switching parties is that I don't have a million dollars and I won't totally fit in a 99% undiversified party. The only thing Kerry has going for him, when it comes to me, is that he served in the military and reminds me of my AP Goverment teacher. I suspect they may be identical twins separated at birth. What do you think Aspirer? /?

By Neo (Neo) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Anti-Kerry Vet Retracts

From CBS news:
....But one of the leading figures in the anti-Kerry campaign is backing off his criticisms.

Lt. Commander George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer, told The Boston Globe that he had made a "terrible mistake" when he signed an affidavit that suggested Kerry did not deserve one of his medals, the Silver Star.....

....
But Elliott now says he regrets signing the affidavit and believes Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

"I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott told the Globe Thursday. "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words."

"I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake," Elliott said. ...

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit

justice,
i don't ever remember calling you a republican.

hunter is right, this thread turned into a joke.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Bush's second run at the Presidency is slowly dismantling day by day... notice how optimisitc and united the whole Dem party is....allow me to quote from the NY Daily News the continued tension between McCain and the Bush campaign (big mistake on behalf of the Bush campaign, McCain is one of the party's stars.. I mean what are you thinking?)


"WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called on the Bush-Cheney campaign yesterday to denounce TV ads ripping John Kerry's war record, but a Bush spokesman took a sideways swipe at McCain instead"

"White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan refused to condemn the commercials paid for by "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth" even after McCain called the 60-second ads running in the battleground states of Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin "dishonest and dishonorable."

"The ads amounted, McCain said, to "the same kind of deal that was pulled on me" by Bush supporters in 2000, when various groups ran ads questioning his own military record as a Vietnam POW and his commitment to breast cancer research."

"The Swift Boat veterans group has received at least $100,000 from Bob Perry, a Houston developer, who is a major contributor to the Bush-Cheney campaign."

""John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam," McCain said. "The Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."

"McClellan ignored McCain's plea and instead criticized the campaign finance reform legislation the Arizona senator authored as full of loopholes that allow advocacy groups to get around spending limits put on individual candidates.

"The President thought he got rid of this unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reform into law," McClellan said, criticizing the legislation that his boss signed. "

I wouldnt be suprised if McCain ends up supporting Kerry in the election..LoL

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 01:17 pm: Edit

and in other news:

July jobs report is dismal

"Economy creates just 32,000 jobs, much lower than forecasts. The unemployment rate edged down to 5.5%.

The U.S. economy many fewer jobs than expected in July, raising big concerns about the recovery in the labor market.

Nonfarm payrolls rose a paltry 32,000 last month, while the unemployment rate ticked down to 5.5%, the Labor Department reported Friday. Economists surveyed by CNBC and Dow Jones had expected nonfarm payrolls to rise 215,000, with the unemployment holding at 5.6%.Check out your options.

In addition, already weak payroll increases recorded in May and June were revised downward by a total 61,000 jobs.

The stock market reacted immediately and decisively, selling off 85 points within minutes of the open.

“It’s a disaster all around if you think about it,” Jack Bouroudjian, principal at Brewer Investment Company, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” In addition, July was a five-week reporting period, instead of the usual four weeks, so the whisper number was for the economy creating 300,000 new jobs, Bouroudjian said.

The finance and insurance sector was one of the hardest hit, losing 25,000 jobs. The one bright spot seemed to be the beleaguered manufacturing sector, which created 10,000 jobs."

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Kerry was also intensely disliked by his high school classmates. The raised money for his opponents in other elections. This is more than just a coincidence.

By Originaloog (Originaloog) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Interesting article.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Start to Sink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial by Shane Cory
August 6, 2004


For the last few weeks, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been ramping up their media operations for the release of their attack ad on John Kerry. This television ad coincides with a book by one of the SwiftVet founders, John O'Neill.



I personally received a few e-mails as the managing editor of the Washington Dispatch. One such e-mail from Tom Mortensen included the following:



"He [Kerry] recommended himself for 2 of his Purple Hearts for minor scratches that were probably self-inflicted and, more importantly, for the Silver Star. The events surrounds the award of the Bronze Star are also questionable as will be revealed in a soon to be released book, “Unfit to Command”, currently #2 in sales at Amazon.com."



This was part of my response:



"Do you have solid evidence that Kerry’s wounds were self-inflicted? If you do bring facts to light and if they’re for real then I’ll give you a column. There is also the risk that if they are not for real or you don’t have any evidence to support your claims, you’ll get a column anyway, just not what you expected."



Tom responded with:



"The facts will [be] out over the next several weeks via testamentary evidence from officers who participated in the actions in question"



I should have called "b.s" at that very moment but I held off due to the chance that they could have some hard, credible evidence against John Kerry. Yet, I strongly felt that someone cannot make that type of accusation without backing it up, no matter what their media plans may be.



I didn't call it then, but I'll call it now. ••••••••!



After looking into the formation of this group which was funded by Republican donors and put together within the past four months, something looked odd. Combine the Republican money with a communications operative known to be "well connected" within the RNC, and you have a Republican hit squad that's willing to slither below James Carville's moral threshold. That's pretty low.



Yesterday afternoon, the first hole appeared in the hull of the Swift Boat Veterans' ship of lies. A key figure in the SwiftVets' attack against John Kerry admitted that he made a "terrible mistake." George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer admitted that he was given an affidavit to sign by the SwiftVets that attacked Kerry's nomination for the Silver Star. He admitted to feeling pressured to sign the false affidavit due to the approaching deadline of the book by John O'Neill. Elliott admitted the mistake and feels that John Kerry deserved his Silver Star.



John O'Neill, the author of the soon to be released book that attacks John Kerry's Vietnam service, never even served on a swift boat at the same time as John Kerry. Kerry was back home in the United States by the time O'Neill took command of his first unit! O'Neill did not even know John Kerry until he was tapped by Richard Nixon. Huh, what was that? Yes, this story gets even more interesting.



Back in 1971, Richard Nixon needed a plan to counter anti-war groups such as Vietnam Veterans Against the War of which John Kerry was a member. He tasked Chuck Colson (of Watergate infamy) to form a group around the young John O'Neill. Yes, this is an old, bitter fight.



The first round of Kerry v. O'Neill occurred in June of 1971 on the Dick Cavett Show. O'Neill takes pride in displaying this "debate" on the website of the Swift Board Veterans for Truth.



The second round occurred this week when O'Neill and his cohorts released this ad against Kerry. Unfortunately for John O'Neill, he knocked himself out with a self-inflicted flurry of lies and stupidity. Instead of taking advantage of non-political veterans by preparing affidavits for their signature and pressuring them to sign them, maybe O'Neill should have dedicated time passing out fliers for Bush's reelection campaign.



Obviously, O'Neill has held a grudge against John Kerry for over three decades. Now backed by Republican money and at least one false affidavit, he may have thought that he had a chance against Kerry. Thankfully, with men like George Elliott coming forward, the truth will prevail.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit

What is more troubling is that by refusing to condem the ads (despite McCain's pleas) the Bush campaign, in a sense, indirectly supported them

..even more troubling Bob Perry donated over $100,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth...the same Bob Perry who is one of the major contributors to the Bush campaign

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 05:32 pm: Edit

Reserve some prayer time for John McCain.

Few of us understand torture more than John McCain. As if the years of abuse in North Vietnam prison camps weren't enough, he had to endure the foul abuse heaped upon him by George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary. Bush surrogates attacked McCain's wife as a drug addicted thief and accused the McCains of having a black child in the family. (John and Cindy McCain had adoped a Bangladeshi child from Mother Teresa's orphanage.)

Now John is watching it all play out again---only this time Bush is laying it on McCain's fellow Vietnam veteran John Kerry. Try to imagine how strong John McCain's love for Republican ideals must be for him to continue serving in a party that viciously slanders opponents in such nasty, foul ways.

Earlier, I said I didn't think John Kerry necessarily qualified for sainthood. I think John McCain does.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 06:36 pm: Edit

Some comments on the article posted by Originaloog:

1) Elliott did retract his statement about the Silver Star, but he does stand behind the other assertions made by the ad.

2) Nixon did not seek out O'Neill, it was the other way around. O'Neill saw the publicity that Kerry was getting and resented what he thought to be lies about the service of the swift boats so he sought out a way to get his side of the story out.

3) He had been asked to take a stance against Kerry in previous elections but didn't want to get involved - so it is not as if he has had a 30 year vendetta against him.

However, I did enjoy one of the links from the article Originaloog quoted. It pertains to the grandiose Monday morning QBing statement made by Kerry about how he would have reacted on 9/11. Turns out he is on public record (larry king show) as being too stunned to even think. According to him, they sat at a table from the the time they saw the second jet hit the tower to the time that the plane hit the pentagon too stunned to think - a total of 42 minutes. Too bad Michael Moore wasn't there to tape that.

------

Larry King to John Kerry on July 8, 2004

Where were you [on 9/11]?

John Kerry: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol.

And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building.

And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.

Here’s the 9/11 timeline pre CNN…

8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center, tearing a gaping hole in the building and setting it afire.

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning. (Kerry sees this horrible event live on TV)

9:17 a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration shuts down all New York City area airports.

9:21 a.m.: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey orders all bridges and tunnels in the New York area closed.

9:30 a.m.: President Bush, speaking in Sarasota, Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack."

9:40 a.m.: The FAA halts all flight operations at U.S. airports, the first time in U.S. history that air traffic nationwide has been halted.

9:43 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately.

9:45 a.m.: The White House evacuates. (Kerry and his colleagues leave shortly thereafter.)

Hindsight is 20/20 but so are transcripts and timelines. John Kerry wants to complain about 7 minutes? He sat stunned after the attacks-- in his own words ‘unable to think’ for at least 42 minutes until he was ‘told to evacuate.’

One might expect John Kerry should retract his petty criticism of the president from Thursday’s meeting.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Yea I heard of that too. In Kerry's own words, he said that "he knew that America was under attack once the FIRST plane hit" and then EVERYONE knew once the 2nd hit. And yes, fundingfather, I also read how Kerry said he sat there for 42 minutes.

I'm going to read more indepth on this and then see what is up.

By Bruceconti (Bruceconti) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 07:05 pm: Edit

I was just listening to some news program and like 15 of the people who spoke in the commercial wasn't even on any of his swift boats he commanded

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 07:15 pm: Edit

It doesn't matter to GOP attack machine - remember Willie Horton?

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 07:26 pm: Edit

No, they served with him and alongside him in other boats on the same patrols. They were there when his medals were won. They were there when these atrocities were presumably taking place that Kerry talks about - yet they never saw them happen. To say that they can not speak knowingly of his actions is like saying a soldier serving in a platoon alongside another platoon has no knowledge of the sargeant of the other platoon. But the fact is that one of Kerry's own crewmates (doesn't appear in the ad) has joined the group attacking Kerry - so not all of Kerry's crew support him.

Note that of the people in the picture that Kerry used in his ads of his Vietnam service (fellow officers), only one person actually supports him for president. That speaks volumes as to how his fellow officers think of his ability to lead.

By Neo (Neo) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Interesting article.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Start to Sink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial by Shane Cory
August 6, 2004


For the last few weeks, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been ramping up their media operations for the release of their attack ad on John Kerry. This television ad coincides with a book by one of the SwiftVet founders, John O'Neill.


I personally received a few e-mails as the managing editor of the Washington Dispatch. One such e-mail from Tom Mortensen included the following:


"He [Kerry] recommended himself for 2 of his Purple Hearts for minor scratches that were probably self-inflicted and, more importantly, for the Silver Star. The events surrounds the award of the Bronze Star are also questionable as will be revealed in a soon to be released book, “Unfit to Command”, currently #2 in sales at Amazon.com."


This was part of my response:


"Do you have solid evidence that Kerry’s wounds were self-inflicted? If you do bring facts to light and if they’re for real then I’ll give you a column. There is also the risk that if they are not for real or you don’t have any evidence to support your claims, you’ll get a column anyway, just not what you expected."


Tom responded with:


"The facts will [be] out over the next several weeks via testamentary evidence from officers who participated in the actions in question"


I should have called "b.s" at that very moment but I held off due to the chance that they could have some hard, credible evidence against John Kerry. Yet, I strongly felt that someone cannot make that type of accusation without backing it up, no matter what their media plans may be.


I didn't call it then, but I'll call it now. ••••••••!


After looking into the formation of this group which was funded by Republican donors and put together within the past four months, something looked odd. Combine the Republican money with a communications operative known to be "well connected" within the RNC, and you have a Republican hit squad that's willing to slither below James Carville's moral threshold. That's pretty low.


Yesterday afternoon, the first hole appeared in the hull of the Swift Boat Veterans' ship of lies. A key figure in the SwiftVets' attack against John Kerry admitted that he made a "terrible mistake." George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer admitted that he was given an affidavit to sign by the SwiftVets that attacked Kerry's nomination for the Silver Star. He admitted to feeling pressured to sign the false affidavit due to the approaching deadline of the book by John O'Neill. Elliott admitted the mistake and feels that John Kerry deserved his Silver Star.


John O'Neill, the author of the soon to be released book that attacks John Kerry's Vietnam service, never even served on a swift boat at the same time as John Kerry. Kerry was back home in the United States by the time O'Neill took command of his first unit! O'Neill did not even know John Kerry until he was tapped by Richard Nixon. Huh, what was that? Yes, this story gets even more interesting.


Back in 1971, Richard Nixon needed a plan to counter anti-war groups such as Vietnam Veterans Against the War of which John Kerry was a member. He tasked Chuck Colson (of Watergate infamy) to form a group around the young John O'Neill. Yes, this is an old, bitter fight.


The first round of Kerry v. O'Neill occurred in June of 1971 on the Dick Cavett Show. O'Neill takes pride in displaying this "debate" on the website of the Swift Board Veterans for Truth.


The second round occurred this week when O'Neill and his cohorts released this ad against Kerry. Unfortunately for John O'Neill, he knocked himself out with a self-inflicted flurry of lies and stupidity. Instead of taking advantage of non-political veterans by preparing affidavits for their signature and pressuring them to sign them, maybe O'Neill should have dedicated time passing out fliers for Bush's reelection campaign.


Obviously, O'Neill has held a grudge against John Kerry for over three decades. Now backed by Republican money and at least one false affidavit, he may have thought that he had a chance against Kerry. Thankfully, with men like George Elliott coming forward, the truth will prevail.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Alongside is not same as serving with him. I am beginning to doubt your truthfulness - like COO of NEWS corp. is a staunch Kerry supporter.

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Well now that we know the ad was completely false, what do you think Bush will use next to attack Kerry?

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 07:37 pm: Edit

Let us ask John McCain or Dukakus.

By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 08:53 pm: Edit

More on another one of the Smear Boat Liars for Bush.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010

Warning. You might have to take a shower after reading this.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 09:11 pm: Edit

from today's los angeles times op-ed pages:

EDITORIAL

It's Not All Fair Game

August 6, 2004

The GOP's war against Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry's Vietnam record has a history. It began in 1971 when the Nixon administration tapped another Vietnam veteran, John E. O'Neill, to form an organization called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace to discredit Kerry, then a freshly minted antiwar protester. Now a new group, called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has O'Neill on its steering committee as well as other members with ties to the Republican Party, is rolling out a $500,000 ad campaign in swing states Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia to attack the Massachusetts senator's war record.

The GOP has no monopoly on deceptive tactics. But the smear campaign against Kerry relies on highly dubious accusations to sow doubts about a well-documented military record.

It's a strategy that has worked in the past. Despite his own murky stint in the National Guard, President Bush did not hesitate to allow GOP operatives to distort Republican Sen. John McCain's Vietnam POW years during the 2000 South Carolina primary by claiming that being a captive wasn't a heroic action, like actively attacking the enemy. At a campaign rally for Bush on Feb. 3, 2000, veteran Tom Burch even declared that "Sen. McCain has abandoned the veterans. He came home and forgot us." This despite McCain's tireless efforts to discover if there were any missing Americans remaining in Vietnam. Then there was the GOP's depiction of then-Georgia Sen. Max Cleland during the 2002 midterm election as soft on terrorism — not to mention far-right columnist Ann Coulter's preposterous claim that it was Cleland's own fault that he lost three limbs in Vietnam because he mishandled a grenade.

Now Kerry is coming in for similar treatment. For example, a column by the conservative National Review's Byron York raised the question of whether the wound that Kerry suffered in December 1968 was really serious enough to qualify him for his first Purple Heart, which with two other Purple Hearts "allowed" Kerry, as York puts it, to leave Vietnam "before his tour of duty was finished." Doesn't Kerry's bold action in beaching his Swift boat, grabbing his M-16 and directly attacking Viet Cong soldiers firing at him and his mates indicate bravery? Apparently not. The new ad of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth depicts Kerry, like Cleland, as an irresponsible bungler. No evidence supports this, and McCain denounced the ad campaign Thursday.

Eyewitness accounts of Kerry's actions show that he acted with decisiveness and, yes, courage. Sure, Kerry evokes his Vietnam service with metronomic regularity and skates over his later opposition to the war. His denunciation of the Vietnam War in 1971 Senate testimony and his antiwar activities are fair game for his opponents. So are his dovish Senate foreign policy stands. But his war record is not.

END


by the way, ann coulter gives politically active women a bad name.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit

I just listened to an interview on Hardball a few minutes ago, interviewing a vet who belongs to Veterans for Truth, and one who supported Kerry. The Veteran for Truth basically said, very definitely, "yes, I served with him" then admitted, well, he never served anywhere in the same vicinity. But he served with him because he had a similar job someplace else in the country at more or less the same time. That was his definition of serving "with" Kerry.

Then he proceeded to say, equally definitely, that Kerry was lying. How did he know? Well, he didn't, he said he just assumed Kerry was lying. Then he admitted that his real problem with Kerry was for Kerry's activities against the war after his return to the US.

The larger problem here is the impact of ads that are false. We live in a media society, and both sides, R's and D's, should be a little more responsible in how they use a powerful communication tool. And in this case, the Vets for the Truth appears to be a blatant misnomer.

By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 01:55 am: Edit

The whole situation is sad. We're in a war that loses and disables Americans every day. We have issues, both governmental and economic that need the attention of those in the position to do something about it. Not to mention the crisis in public education. Shame on the folks from Texas who paid for these ads. That money could have been used for something more effective - like talking about the real issues.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:17 am: Edit

Fundingfather... your responses are almost comical

I really love how you turn the issue to where and what kerry was doing on 9/11... does that make you a flipflopper by the way?

You are forgeting one key fact... on 9/11 kerry played a much different role than bush... he was only a senator... bush was the president... what do you expect kerry to do? Call congress into emergency session? He had no authority... all he said was that if he was PRESIDENT at the time (having the authority to act) he would have responded differently than bush

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:01 am: Edit

Scubasteve - exactly what would Kerry had done if he was "too stunned to think" as he admitted. Sorry to inform you, but when you take the oath of office, it doesn't automatically change how your brain functions. I'm not being critical of Kerry for that - I think all of us were too stunned to think when that was happening. What I do hold him accountable for, however, is his insinuation that Bush lacked leadership capability and his after-the-fact bragging about how he would have handled the situation. The fact is that if he were in the classroom, he likely would have handled it the same way as Bush.

Simba: are you really calling me a liar regarding the News Corp president? I guess that's the automatic charge that a Democrat has these days when they get confronted with a fact that is inconsistent with their way of thinking. I can assure you that it is the truth and he was shown on TV (Fox) in Davenport alongside Kerry at the economic forum. Perhaps if you broadened the spectrum of your news sources you would start to see both sides of the issues.

Edit: With two quick google searches (45 seconds) you could have confirmed what I said, but instead you chose to call me a lier. See:http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA380314?display=Top+of+the+Week

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:59 am: Edit

Fundingfather: My apologies. Actually what I said was,"I am beginning to doubt your truthfulness".

But apologies anyway.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Apology accepted, but perhaps you should also appologize to the swift boat veterens for truth. You have no way of knowing that they are lieing, just that their story doesn't jibe with what you want to believe about John Kerry. These people were there with Kerry. They were on the exact same mission when Kerry won his bronze star. Their boat also picked up some of the people on the boat that hit the mine. It's not as if they have no basis for claiming what they are. They say that the swift boats never participated in the atrocities that Kerry claims to have participated in. Are we to assume that only Kerry's boat did the atrocities? If so, what does that say about him as a leader?

Bottom line is that we don't know what really happened. One side or the other may be bending the truth, but to automatically assume that those attacking Kerry are the liars is not logical. Remember, there are far more of his former colleagues who don't support him than do - that must say something about his character in their eyes.

By Samueladams (Samueladams) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Another interesting tidbit about military histories, the guy who writes the Doonesbury comic strip and went to Yale the same time Bush was there, has offered a 10,000 dollar reward for anyone who can prove Bush completed his service in the national guard. It's kind of nice to see someone putting their money where their mouth is. $10k speaks circles around all those that insist he served honorably. Read the interview in the most recent Rolling Stone, august 5th I believe.

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 01:21 pm: Edit

Now You are pushing your luck. Doesn't all the inforamtion above the money trail, and the cast behind the scenes make you wonder the real motives? Willie Horton Replay?

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit

By the way, the Boston Globe is now being accused of misquoting George Elliott. He only retracts a minor part of his original affadavit but stands solidly behind what he says in the commercial (that Kerry was dishonest) and reaffirms that he would never had recommended Kerry for the silver star had he known all the facts of the incident.

http://www.swiftvets.com/Elliottaffidavit08062004.pdf


I guess Originaloog will have to re-assess his glowing comment about "men like Elliott" coming forward now that Elliott has been shown to still be against Kerry. It's funny how people are only brave when they support our own pre-conceived notions. If they go against them, they are "smear boat liars".

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 01:55 pm: Edit

But they are. Willie Horton

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Simba,

Are you suggesting that because there may be some wealthy Republicans funding a part of it that these guys are lying? What would motivate them to do so? They certainly are not being paid to do this. Do you realize that they paid some of their own money to get their message out? One may question the wisdom of putting out such a message, but it is a lot harder to question their honesty just because of their backing.

As to the Willie Horton ad, I never saw such a big deal about that. Just because he was black does not mean that they were trying to play to racial stereotypes. It was an effective message regarding Dukakis' position on crime. I certainly didn't see racial motivations behind it.

But if you want to talk about ads that were blatantly racist, look at the ad that the NAACP played tying Bush to the murder of the Byrd in Texas. Next to the anti-Goldwater "daisy" ad, that was the lowest blow in all of politics. It's no wonder that Bush refused to speak with the NAACP after having such a hateful ad directed at him.

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit

yes

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:12 pm: Edit

they better change their name to Swift Boat vets for BLATANT, DISGRACEFUL lies.

Kerry has many faults. Bush is better in many respects than John Kerry. BUT military service is NOT one of them. Kerry's service in the military showed courage. Bush found ways to avoid serving in the army.

Republicans will be more successful if they focus on Kerry's shady and very liberal (ranked 2nd or something) senate record, rather than spreading lies about his military service.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Paulhomework:

Well, I'm glad to see someone like you who was there to finally come forward and clear this thing up. If you, an eyewitness, were there, then these guys must be the blatant disgraceful liars that you claim them to be.

Thanks for clearing this whole thing up.

PS you must have been all over the place back then, because you also obviously know all the facts about Bush's National Guard service as well. Since you were so well-traveled back than, maybe you can clear up this issue as well: did Clinton really inhale or not?

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit

In 1996, when Kerry was running for Senate reelection and faced questions about the circumstances in which he shot the Viet Cong fighter, Elliott came to Boston and defended Kerry, saying he deserved the Silver Star.

Globe Editor Martin Baron released a statement saying "the Globe stands by the article. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate."

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Fundingfather, you get nailed into a corner on one issue.. so you shy away from it and introduce another... typical GOP politics... what does Clinton have to do with this discussion?

Do you even understand that stupidity of this debate. We are arguing over how many medals Kerry deserved to win. yes, MEDALS... those little shiny things you get for serving honorably in WAR. Bush avoided Vietnam, rode Daddy's ticket into the National Guard and there is much speculation over if he even fully served in the Guard or not. I think it takes a lot of audacity to even argue the legitamacy of Kerry's medals... when Bush well, didn't even serve... to say the least

John McCain is not even arguing this issue. He is dismissing it and coming to Kerry's defense. What do you have to say about that?

There is a lot more fact surrounding Bush's National Guard AWOL...and if true it is of much greater consequence... lets talk about that

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:46 pm: Edit

"What would motivate them to do so? They certainly are not being paid to do this. Do you realize that they paid some of their own money to get their message out?"

Have you forgetten they are putting out a book on the whole BS ordeal. Last time it checked it cost $$ to buy a book... where does the $$ go... hmm i wonder

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Scuba:

Perhaps you don't understand sarcasm when you read it. The Clinton reference was only a sarcastic comment relating to anyone being able to say who is lying on this issue.

I see that you too know all of the details of Bush's service and somehow dispute his honorable discharge.

But, it is interesting how you assess what is pertinent an what is not. Let's say that Kerry is telling the 100 percent truth about his involvement in Vietnam and that Bush is lying about his guard service. Then that means that to miss a few guard meetings is worse than shooting civilians and burning down villages. Interesting set of priorities that you have there.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Simba:

This is how Elliott rationalizes his support of Kerry for Senate:

''I find a couple of things ironic. I stood alongside John Kerry along with Admiral Zumwalt and Adrian Lonsdale in 1996 to defend him against the false accusation of -- Guess what? -- atrocities and war crimes," Elliott said. ''That wasn't true then; that's why I stood with him. The second irony is, in 1971 . . . he claimed that the 500,000 men in Vietnam in combat were all villains. There were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared running for president."

I don't see that as being inconsistent on his part. He defended Kerry on specific charges that he knew not to be true. Which is a very interesting twist since when it was to Kerry's political advantage (the anti-war 70s) he himself created the atrocity issue.

Don't you find it fishy that Kerry refuses to make his entire military record public? If he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he allow it to be released? GWB released all of his records. Inquiring minds want to know.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:11 pm: Edit

I don't understand the analogy... are you asserting that Kerry "shot civilians and bruned down villages"

If you are not, and I don't think you are... than the analogy makes no sense.

Even if someone establishes 100%, irrefutable evidence that Kerry did not deserve a silver star (which will never happen, the media has already discredited the veterans for truth as BS)... he still won 3 purple hearts...prove that he didn't deserve them... and he still risked his life to serve in Vietnam... something Bush neglected to do. The way I see it, while Kerry was out risking his life, Bush failed to even serve honorably in the National Guard (yes failing to show up for duty is AWOL... what kind of man does that make him?)

No matter what they attempt to prove, they can never take away from Kerry the fact that he actually served in Vietnam.... Bush did not. That is why I don't understand the point of this debate.

And again, what do you have to say about McCain's comments? Or are you going to discredit one of the stars of your party?

By Simba (Simba) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Fundingfather: You are loosing traction. Pick another topic like dishonestly suggesting to misbehave in a concert as an invited guest. You know that it is for a liberal cause.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Scubasteve: "I don't understand the analogy... are you asserting that Kerry "shot civilians and bruned down villages?"

According to witnesses, yes Kerry used zippo lighters to burn down huts and he did shoot farm animals.

I'm still not sure about him murdering a civilian though. He claims the civilian fired on him, ran away, and then he chased him down and shot him. (Kerry's own words; heared it on an interview on CNN). This account could be possible, though its refuted by the crews of other swift boats.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Scuba: you need to do more homework; Kerry himself said that he committed war atrocities. He said this in Senate testimony as well as on the Dick Cavet show. This is not disputable.

Since you clearly have not done your homework on Kerry it is also obvious that you have just been listening to Terry McCauliffe and Michael Moore regardings Bush's service. Go back and do your homework and then we can discuss it

McCain does not call the swift boat vets liars as you are so willing to do; he just says that it doesn't belong in the campaign. These are two completely different things. I would normally agree with McCain were it not for Kerry making service from 35 years ago somehow relevant to his qualifications to be President. If he thinks it is, then the American public deserves to know both sides about what happened, not just his side.

By Sheeprun (Sheeprun) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Fundingfather,

I know what sarcasm is. I also recognize bad manners and a bullying attitude when I see it.

I suggest you make no further posts to this thread.

<moderator>

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Simba,

What the heck are you talking about? I never advocated misbehaving in a concert. Is not clapping considered to be misbehaving these days? Wow, you guys have a whole new moral code - I'm sure we'll see it displayed in all of its civility at the Republican Convention.

By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

interesting article from one site Jlq3d3 called non-partisan and he is the most conservative person on this board,

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:46 pm: Edit

"McCain does not call the swift boat vets liars as you are so willing to do; he just says that it doesn't belong in the campaign. These are two completely different things"

FundingFather comon now... here is what sen. mccain said:

"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam...."

"White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan refused to condemn the commercials paid for by "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth" even after McCain called the 60-second ads running in the battleground states of Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin "dishonest and dishonorable."

"The ads amounted, McCain said, to "the same kind of deal that was pulled on me" by Bush supporters in 2000, when various groups ran ads questioning his own military record as a Vietnam POW and his commitment to breast cancer research."

You are right he didn't call the Swift Boat Veteran's liars... he called them dishonest and dishonorable... and even went as far to say that they did not even serve on the same boat with Kerry.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit

According to the Silver Star's citation and after-action report:

"Kerry was in command of a three-boat mission on the Dong Cung River. As the boats approached the target area, they came under intense enemy fire. Kerry ordered his boat to attack and all boats opened fire. He then beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. In the battle that followed, the crews captured enemy weapons. His boat then moved further up the river to suppress more enemy fire. A rocket exploded near Kerry's boat, and he ordered to charge the enemy. Kerry beached his boat 10 feet from the rocket position and led a landing party ashore to pursue the enemy.

Doug Reese, a pro Kerry Army veteran, recounted what happened that day to O'Neill, "Far from being alone, the boats were loaded with many soldiers commanded by Reese and two other advisors. When fired at, Reese's boat--not Kerry's--was the first to beach in the ambush zone. Then Reese and other troops and advisors (not Kerry) disembarked, killing a number of Viet Cong and capturing a number of weapons. None of the participants from Reese's boat received Silver Stars."

The controversy probably stems from the views of the other swift boat crews who were with Kerry in this action and saw him get off the boat to pursue fleeing Vietnamese

According to the other crews: "Whether Kerry's dispatching of a fleeing, wounded, armed or unarmed teenage enemy was in accordance with the customs of war, it is very clear that many Vietnam veterans and most Swiftees do not consider this action to be the stuff of which medals of any kind are awarded; nor would it even be a good story if told in the cold details of reality. There is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched. Likewise, the citation simply ignores the presence of the soldiers and advisors who actually 'captured the enemy weapons' and routed the Viet Cong. . . . [and] that Kerry attacked a 'numerically superior force in the face of intense fire' is simply false. There was little or no fire after Kerry followed the plan. . . . The lone, wounded, fleeing young Viet Cong in a loincloth was hardly a force superior to the heavily armed Swift Boat and its crew and the soldiers carried aboard."

No doubt Kerry fought bravely under fire. The controversy brought up by the other crews is simply whether he should have deserved a silver star (reserved for exceptional service).

By Songman (Songman) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Dennis said in another post although it may be pertinent to this thread......

Dennis said: "Thus, I beg you, stop the Clinton vs. Bush comparisons. They don't really matter. Let's compare the positions of the people actually running for the Presidency in 2004."

I agree ,in the end,both parties tell the same lies,break the same promises and leave the middle class nowhere, but to continue to pay for all the mania. Right or wrong this is the way I see the political world. I salute all of you for attempting or maintaining a spirited debate. I am such a skeptical guy regarding politics. Both parties seem to argue over issues (compare positions)and 90% of the time they accomplish nothing . They finger point and name call (Lib vs con vs moderate vs independent)to me all the debating and arguing only serves to keep people below the surface so we never see/discuss the bigger picture. Social agendas,business interests,tlak shows and politicians lead the charge. Everyone else is too busy making a living and keeping all of it afloat.

Yes maybe I am an old hippie,but funny the complaints the hippies had about government,politicians and big business still remain. "The more things change the more they remain the same"

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 05:46 pm: Edit

Fundingfather:

Go ahead and believe the swift boat for crap as truth. also, continue believing that Bush actually cared about serving his country during the vietnam war. Frankly, I don't care. You seem incapable of comprehending the obvious.

I hope this smear strategy against Kerry backfires into the face of those who finance these kinds of false attacks.

By Crypto86 (Crypto86) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Justice said this:

"When someone talks trash out of his mouth, I lose respect for him."

Lol, then why don't you criticize George Bush for misleading our nation's citizens and the world by saying Iraq had WMD.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 12:55 am: Edit

Loved this editorial from Chairforce.com:

Author defends America's war in Iraq

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists before 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst president" and "mismanagement" claims. FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941 to 1945, 450,000 lives were lost; an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950 to 1953, 55,000 lives were lost; an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy escalated the Vietnam conflict in 1962, after it was started with "advisers" by Harry Truman and allowed to continue under Ike (minimal losses under both Truman and Ike). Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965 to 1975, 58,000 lives were lost; an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.

Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by the country of Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled the al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist (Saddam Hussein) who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We have lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on! The Democrats are complaining about how
long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida.

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 08:52 am: Edit

This people must have inhaled something

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 10:51 am: Edit

riight....what a good response simba....


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page